The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - City Council - 1964-03-19 82 City Co,uncil, Adjourned Me.eting Police Dept. &, Council Chambers Bldg. � Redding, California March 19, 1964 12:00 Noon The meeting was called•to order by Mayor Martin .witli�the,.following counciTmen present: Chatfield, Denny_, Kriegsman, Moty and Martiri. , � Also present were City Manager Cowden and City Attorney Murphy. � � RESOLUTION - Rescinding Res. Prohibiting Parking Ptn._ Riverside Drive MOTION: Made. by, Councilman Chatfield, . seconded by Councilman Moty that Resolution No. 3255 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of �f� Redding rescinding Resolution No. 3209, prohibiting parking ori Ri.versicle ` Drive in the 1400 a�,d.1500 bloc�s. _� _, _ � � _ . Voting was as follows: � • , . . , , , �yes: Councilmen: -�Chatfield, Denny, Kriegsman, Moty and Martiri _ Noes: Councilmen - None � `~� , � , �bsent: Councilmen - None � \ Resolution No. 3255 on file in the office of the City Clerk. REPORT - Del Mar Subdivision � � � City Attorney Murphy submitted "Report on, request of David Hinds to issue build- ing permits in Del Mar Subdivision #1 subject to certain conditions"^dated March 19, 1964. .. , , � . � _ _ Mr. Murphy reviewed the request from_Robert Sondag on behalf of David Hinds that Council allow building permits to be issued on the remaining lots iri Del 1vlar Sub- division No. 1, upon-1/28th _of the -inspec.tion cost and estimated additional construction cost being deposited with theCity for eacli�l;ot to be released, The fraction is based upon the fact there were 28 lots originally�in the subdivision, 13 of which have been improved and released by:the City from any further obligations in relation to the remaining improvements required by the final sub� division map, which have not been constructed. � � The Cit�y Attorney �recommended this offer, of 1VIr. ,Hind's.be rej.ected, but that Council submit a counter offer as follows: _ �, , � _ _. For each lot in Del Mar Subdivision No. 1 on which he wishes to obtain a building permit that Mr. Hinds be required to post the _ � _ � _ , � _ following: �� . , . _ 1/15th of the following additional e stimated construction costs: Additional drainage constru�ction.. $6, 000. 00 Fencing along Benton Drive at $2. 00 per running foot 868. 00 Total $6, 868. 00 1/15th equals $ 457. 86 This sum to be re£undable to Mr. Hinds at such time as he constructs, at his own expense, the total drainage improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works required by Del Mar Subdivision No. 2 and these remaining to be constructed in Del Mar Subdivision No. 1, and in addition thereto, has constructed the fence along the south side of Benton Drive along the lots abutting thereto in Del Mar Subdivision No. 1. In addition to this refundable deposit, the City Attorney further recommended the City require Mr. Hinds .to pay 1/15th of the unpaid inspection costs amounting to $1, 105. 35, or the sum of $73. 69, at the time of issuance of each building permit for a single lot in Del Mar Subdivision No. 1. This would be a p�ayment of the prorata share of the inspection fees and would not be refundable. r 83 The City Attorney then 5tated he believed this constitutes an equitable solution ' for both the City and Mr: Hinds, since the Planning Commission is considering an alternate solution of the drainage problems of Del Mar Subdivision No. 2, � which would involve carrying� the draznage directly south across the park and into the river, and in addition to providing a superior drainage solution, would be substantially less expenei:Ye than carrying the drainage westerly under the " Southern Pacific tresle and into Dix Canyon Creek, whicn was the solution contemplated at the time of co:istruction of Del Mar Subdivision No. 1. � � If council elected to adopt this counter proposal as a matter of p�licy, the -City Attorney further recommended they authorize the issuance of the requested build- ` ing permits upon the posting of the above.refundable deposit and payment and the written.promise of 1VIr. Hinds to execute an agreement spellin� out the terms of this counter proposal. .��'Si _ � - � � / Mr. Murphy advised he had received provisional approval of�the Director of . Public V�rorks for the subject matter of this report; it would not be fair to state he joined in this recommen�.ation because Mr. Arness was ill and he had not seen the recommendation in the forrn herein presented. � - MOTION: Made by Councilman Kriegsman, seconded by Councilman Moty the recornmendations of the City Attorney, as presented, be approved. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen � Denny, Kriegsman, Moty.and Martin Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None Abstain: Councilmen- Chatfield RESOLUTION - Supporting H. R: 8489 � MOTION: Made by Councilman Kriegsman, seconded by Councilman Chatfield the City Attorney be directed to prepare resalution supporting H. R. 84$9, which seeks to zstablish Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation area in the State of California, and to authorize the necessary eopies of said resolution be . sent to John Perez, Chairman of the Shasta County Board of Superviso�s; for �� presentation at the Congressional Committee Hearing to be he�ld in Red�ling, Thursday, March 26, 1964; the Mayor be authorized to sign said r¢solution, and Mr. Perez to present it to the Congressional Gommittee H�aring on belialf of the City. The Vote: Unanimou5 Ayes. � � � � . . There being no further busin�ss, on motion of Councilman Moty, seconded by Councilman Kriegsman, the�mee�ing was adjourned. : _ .. E . _ � _ APPROVED• � ��'' ' ' _�� r � � ' ' l%�L'�� -�— ��✓� ��Mayor � ��--� . � _ _ . � Attest: � ; ,�-� , .. ;_ . _ . � � /� t , (�� - _� -�� . . City lerk : , . . - . ' - . _ - .. � . . . ,